Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Early versus Late Debridement of Superficial Triangular Fibrocartilage Complex Tears.

Background: While initial nonoperative management is the conventional approach for superficial triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) tears, a substantial portion of these cases go on to require surgery, and the optimal duration of nonoperative treatment is unknown. In this study, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early versus late arthroscopic debridement for the treatment of superficial TFCC tears without distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) instability. Methods: We created a decision tree to compare the following strategies from a healthcare payer perspective: immediate arthroscopic debridement versus immobilization for 4 or 6 weeks with late debridement as needed. Costs were obtained from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services and a national administrative claims database. Probabilities and health-related quality-of-life measures were obtained from published sources. We conducted sensitivity analyses on model inputs, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis consisting of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Results: Immobilization for 6 weeks while reserving arthroscopic debridement for refractory cases was both the least costly and most effective strategy. Immediate arthroscopic debridement became cost-effective when success rates of immobilization for 4 or 6 weeks were less than 7.7 or 10.5%, respectively. Our probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that immobilization for 6 weeks was preferred 97.6% of the time, and immobilization for 4 weeks was preferred 2.4% of the time. Conclusion: Although various early and late debridement strategies can be used to treat superficial TFCC tears without DRUJ instability, immobilization for 6 weeks while reserving arthroscopic debridement for refractory cases is the optimal strategy from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.

Efficacy of Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Injection for Nonsurgical Management of Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: As osteoarthritis (OA) of the trapeziometacarpal (TMC) joint leads to a high degree of disease burden with compromises in rudimentary and fine movements of the hand, intra-articular injections may be a desirable treatment option. However, because there are no evidence-based guidelines, the choice of intra-articular injection type is left to the discretion of the individual surgeon in collaboration with the patient. The purpose of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using level I studies to compare outcomes following corticosteroid and alternative methods of intra-articular injections for the management of TMC OA. Our hypothesis was that intra-articular corticosteroid injections were no more effective than other methods of intra-articular injections for the management of TMC OA. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed. Eligible for inclusion were randomized control trials reporting on intra-articular corticosteroid injection for the management of TMC OA. Clinical outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: The 10 included studies comprised 673 patients. The mean age was 57.8 ± 8.3 years, with a mean follow-up of 6.4 ± 2.7 months. There was no significant difference in visual analog scale scores, grip strength and tip pinch strength between corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid at short- and medium-term follow-up. Further, there was no difference in visual analog scale pain scores at rest at medium-term follow-up between corticosteroids and platelet-rich plasma. CONCLUSIONS: Despite short-term improvement with intra-articular corticosteroid injections, there was no significant difference in pain and functional outcomes following intra-articular corticosteroid injections compared to hyaluronic acid or platelet-rich plasma administration. Given the affordability, ease of administration, and efficacy associated with corticosteroids, they are a favorable option when considering the choice of intra-articular injection for the management of TMC OA. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic II.

Comparison Between Intramedullary Nail and Percutaneous Pin Fixation in Proximal Phalanx Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous pinning has been the predominant technique for fixation of proximal phalanx fractures, but stiffness is a reported complication. The introduction of intramedullary (IM) nail fixation of proximal phalanx fractures provides a stronger biomechanical fixation for amenable fracture patterns with the added benefit of not tethering the soft tissue. The goal of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of IM nail and percutaneous pin fixation in isolated proximal phalanx fractures. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed at our institution between the years 2018 and 2022 for patients treated for proximal phalanx fractures. Patients that underwent fixation with IM nails or percutaneous fixation for isolated extraarticular proximal phalanx fractures were included. Patients were excluded if they had concomitant hand fractures, tendon injury, or intraarticular extension. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were included in this study. Twenty-eight patients received percutaneous pin fixation, and 22 patients underwent IM nail or screw fixation. There was no significant difference in injury patterns or demographics between these two groups. Patients that underwent IM nail fixation had a significantly quicker return to active motion, shorter duration of orthosis treatment, and fewer occupational therapy visits. In addition, patients in the IM fixation group had significantly improved range of motion (ROM) at 6 weeks postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that patients receiving percutaneous pin or IM nail fixation have equivocal union and complication rates. The IM nail fixation group was able to have quicker return to mobilization, fewer required occupational therapy visits, and improved early ROM.

Variations in Treatment and Costs for Distal Radius Fractures in Patients Over 55 Years of Age: A Population-Based Study.

Objective To evaluate the rate of surgery for symptomatic malunion after nonoperatively treated distal radius fractures in patients aged 55 and above, and to secondarily report differences in demographics, geographical variation, and utilization costs of patients requiring subsequent malunion correction. Methods We identified patients aged 55 and above who underwent nonoperative treatment for a distal radius fracture between 2007 and 2016 using the IBM MarketScan database. In the nonoperative cohort, we identified patients who underwent malunion correction between 3 months and 1 year after distal radius fracture. The primary outcome was rate of malunion correction. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for sex, region, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) was used. We also report patient demographics, geographical variation, and utilization cost. Results The rate of subsequent malunion surgery after nonoperative treatment was 0.58%. The cohort undergoing malunion surgery was younger and had a lower ECI. For every 1-year increase in age, there was a 6.4% decrease in odds of undergoing surgery for malunion, controlling for sex, region, and ECI (odds ratio = 0.94 [0.93-0.95]; p < 0.01). The southern United States had the highest percentage of patients initially managed operatively (30.7%), the Northeast had the lowest (22.0%). Patients who required a malunion procedure incurred higher costs compared with patients who did not ($7,272 ± 8,090 vs. $2,209 ± 5,940; p < 0.01). Conclusion The rate of surgery for symptomatic malunion after initial nonoperative treatment for distal radius fractures in patients aged 55 and above is low. As younger and healthier patients are more likely to undergo malunion correction with higher associated costs, surgeons may consider offering this cohort surgical treatment initially.